From a Chinese supplier of fluoridation chemicals. See resource item 4
Note: Unless marked ‘in full’, news items are extracts and/or summaries of full articles that should be available by following the link shown. If the link no longer works, use the comment page or email email@example.com where a full copy is kept of most articles
There will be no update next week (December 22). As soon as possible after December 31st there will be a final update in the current format that will include an end-of-year review and details of a new format and frequency for the web site for 2015.
Season’s greetings to all!
Isle of Man
During this morning’s Tynwald questions, Health Minister Howard Quayle was pressed on the issue of flujoridation, but said his department consulted the public in 2008 – and received a resounding “no”. He added there are no plans to introduce fluoride into drinking water in the near future:
City officials will increase the amount of fluorine added to the city’s water by nearly 30 percent in the coming weeks, according to a release issued late Monday from Loveland’s Water and Power Department.
In the statement issued Monday, department spokeswoman Gretchen Stanford said Water and Power Director Steve Adams chose to increase the fluoridation rate of Loveland water from 0.7 milligrams per liter to 0.9 milligrams per liter, a 28.6 percent increase, but not to the original levels before 2010.
. In October, members recommended the city keep its fluoridation, but their decision was not binding. The ruling appears to be consistent with a Loveland City Council directive from 1952 that required the city to maintain fluoridation “to proper amounts as recommended by health and dental authorities.”
And here is a response from the Lovely County Citizen
FROM THE EDITOR: Citizens United … against fluoride
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Over the past two weeks, I have received calls, emails and letters from many of you who adamantly oppose the mandated fluoridation of water in the Carroll-Boone Water District, and subsequently, Eureka Springs.
I am new to the issue and at first was unsure about why exactly a whole community that tends to disagree on most things could unite to fight against fluoridation of its water. But, after researching, I have concluded that mandatory fluoridation of water in CBWD, Eureka Springs, Arkansas and anywhere in the U.S. is not only a bad idea, it violates our personal liberty.
We are not being given a choice about potentially harmful additives that go into a vital resource necessary to sustain life because our government has deemed that adding fluoride to our water supply benefits the greater good. Never mind that countless scientific studies show that using fluoride toothpaste without adding fluoride to the water supply seems to be enough to help prevent cavities. If the government is so concerned about the public’s dental health, why not provide low-to-no-cost preventative programs?
The current dental position is that a constant low level of fluoride in the mouth works best to prevent cavities. The operative words here are “low level.” From what I have uncovered so far, citizens in the CBWD are not being told the exact amount of fluoride that will be included in the water supply so they can determine whether it is indeed “low level.” Why not? What is clear is that water fluoridation can adversely affect more vulnerable populations such as those who suffer from autoimmune conditions and who may not be able to afford filtration equipment. Those people, especially, are not being given a choice about their health.
Worldwide, countries are opposing water fluoridation. On Aug. 26, Israel officially stopped adding fluoride to its water supplies, stating “Only some 1 percent of the water is used for drinking, while 99 percent of the water is intended for other uses such as industry, agriculture, and flushing toilets.”
In journalism, the first rule when examining such a complex issue is to follow the money. According to Charity Navigator, Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas is registered as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization. According to the Internal Revenue Service website, “organizations who engage in substantial lobbying activities sometimes are classified as social welfare organizations.”
The landmark Citizens United case opened the proverbial floodgates to allow social welfare organizations to funnel vast sums of money into “social welfare” or political action causes. So, if a corporation has a vested financial interest in fluoridating the public water supply, it can do so by creating a social welfare organization and use its financial might to ensure it happens.
So what can people who live in CBWD do to stop mandatory fluoridation of their water by an entity that has a vested financial interest in violating their personal liberty? You can stand against it by taking personal exemptions that require schools to give bottled water to your children. You can write your congressmen and governor. You can organize and see what successful action other communities have taken to stop fluoridation of the water supply. You can continue working with journalists to keep the conversation going in the media.
There is still time to stop fluoridation of the public’s water supply, but not much. Lawmakers need to listen to citizens of Eureka Springs and change legislation that requires water fluoridation. The citizens of Eureka Springs have spoken — it’s time for the government to listen. Say no to fluoridation of our drinking water supply and overturn legislation that mandates fluoridation of our drinking water.
A committee plans to make the case before the Bennington Select Board for fluoridating the town’s water.
Richard Dundas, a doctor from Bennington and member of the Bennington Oral Health Coalition, spoke during the citizen’s comment portion of Monday’s select board meeting. ” The board agreed to hear a presentation at their Dec. 22 meeting, at which point they would presumably begin deliberations as to whether to put the question to the voters. Opponents will not be allowed to speak at that time, said chairman Greg Van Houten. That would take place at a later public hearing if the board decides to pursue this further.
This would mark the sixth time that Bennington has considered fluoridating its water Van Houten said, “It’s going to be a big discussion. There’s a lot of people that feel passionately both ways
City Utilities Manager Dan Roberts confirmed today that the city will begin to add fluoride to the water supply beginning in January. Crews have finished installing equipment to add fluorosilicic acid at the Sheridan and Big Goose water treatment plants. Fluoride will be added to city and Sheridan Area Water Supply water. “We’re telling everybody to assume it will be Jan. 1,”
More than 2,000 Sheridan area residents have signed a petition over the last year asking the city not to fluoridate because they feel the use of fluoride should be a choice
The Cape Ann Fluoride Action Network (CAFAN) has been hard at work for seven months now, working with Rockport and Gloucester governments to cease the practice of drinking water fluoridation on Cape Ann.
After a spring and summer of events and efforts to get the word out, they won a vote at Rockport’s Fall Town Meeting in September to have the question of fluoridation put on the ballot in the spring, and the Legislature has given its approval to go ahead with the vote.
Now, similar efforts have been made in the city of Gloucester, and a public hearing on water fluoridation is now set for next Tuesday, Dec. 16, at 7 p.m. at Gloucester City Hall.
This is a very major event along the road to a fluoride-free Cape Ann.
Also correspondence and comments including a to-and-fro febate with this letter writer and Mr Slott.
To the editor:
Like the WWII Pacific Island cargo cultists who thought that the aid packages dropped out of the sky when people waved a flag at the sky, dentists have, I believe, confused concurrent behavior with causal mechanics.
Since 2000, essentially all scientific review has agreed that community water fluoridation (CWF) has little or no impact on dental decay rates.
Yet many, but not all dentists, claim that water fluoridation prevents cavities. They claim they see the evidence in their offices, so they know it is true.
Why do they say that? Well, oral health is improving, but due to improved dental care, improved dental hygiene, sophisticated implant and crown technology, more nutritious diets, and better overall health.
The decline in dental decay began in the 1930s, prior to the implementation of any water fluoridation scheme. According to World Health Organization (WHO) data, improved dental health is a world-wide trend, independent of water or salt fluoridation.
Studies done in six countries, including the U.S. looked at the impact on dental health in communities that stopped fluoridating their water. All studies show that decay rates continued to drop in all instances, as did rates of dental fluorosis. In other words, water fluoridation was immaterial to rates of decay but causal for dental fluorosis, a defect in tooth enamel.
It should also be noted that the severity of dental fluorosis is positively correlated with a life long increase in bone fractures. This is the hard data that should be driving our community decision-making, not assumptions based on incidental observations.
However, the American Dental Association (ADA), backed by Pew, is pouring millions of dollars into the continuation of CWF policy put in place in the 1940s by our U.S. government. Pew funds “oral health initiatives” and provides the ADA, dentists and Boards of Health with professionally created marketing materials — this despite Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the ADA admitting that their original hypothesis that fluoride had to be ingested to be effective has been shown to be false.
Study after study since the 1980s has verified that fluoride works topically, not systemically. The Public Health Service, CDC and ADA acquiesced to that science about 2000, but couch their language with an adjective. They claim that the benefit of fluoride is “predominantly” post-eruptive so as to rationalize the continuation of CWF.
The most disturbing element of the ADA and AMA endorsement of water fluoridation is that neither organization has conducted any studies of their own on effectiveness or whole health safety. Neither has there been any large double blind study.
Instead, the fluoridation lobby base their support on the 1950 policy promoted by the PHS and CDC, which specifically advises dentists to regard CWF as “promotional work” and not concern themselves with the science. Dentist and doctor support of CWF is a matter of professional courtesy, i.e. political peer pressure.
Water fluoridation is not causal in the improvement of oral health. It is concurrent and coincidental with a decades long world wide trend, but it is not causal.
Like the cargo cultists of the Pacific Islands, our dentists and doctors, who deserve much well-deserved credit for health improvements over the past 65 years, should stop waving that community fluoridation flag.
KAREN FAVAZZA SPENCER
Langsford Street, Gloucester
In full without additional comments, from:
CBC News reported Monday that local dentists and hygienists say they are seeing rampant decay in children’s teeth three years after fluoride stopped being added to Calgary’s water supply. However,a Calgary councillor says the city has no plans to revisit the drinking water fluoridation issue
“One of the things that we did when we removed fluoride is we took the savings from that program for a year-worth, basically a half a million dollars,… and gave it to a program that works with low-income families around preventative dental care,” he said.
A study looking into Calgary’s tooth decay rates will be completed in the spring.
Some additional in formation, just befiore the vote which confirmed that Prince George will be fluoride free by the end of the month.
The switch could be flipped on fluoride by the end of the year. The new city council will vote Monday night on discontinuing the fluoridation of Prince George’s drinking water. Public works director Bill Gaal recommends the city end fluoridation on or before Dec. 31. The decision to put the issue to a referendum was made in February 2013, but the vote isn’t politically binding like it was in other communities. On Nov. 15, 53 per cent of Cranbrook voters rejected adopting a new bylaw to stop fluoridating their water while Sparwood residents voted 58 per cent in favour of shutting off their fluoridation system. – See more at: http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/news/local-news/fluoridation-vote-set-for-monday-1.1663009#sthash.4TcNf7dF.dpuf
Ar contentious issue was whether to re-install a dispensing device as part of a fluoridation process. Council agreed if they were to re-introduce fluoridation, money from reserves would be used to pay for $300,000 in modifications.
[Councilor] Rivette was upset that anti-fluoride crusaders were mailing information to councillors. He said information should be provided by medical officer of health, Dr. Paul Roumeliotis. But O’Shaughnessy said all sides of the issue should be represented
A celebrity chef stirs things.
Chef Pete Evans is in discussions with anti-fluoride group, Fluoride Free which holds claims that water fluoridation leads to disease and tooth decay.
Evans claims he doesn’t “touch” Aussie tap water, and confirmed his meeting with Fluoride Free to discuss “ideas”, The Daily Telegraph reports.
“If you look at the number of countries who have reversed their fluoridation programs, it really raises alarm bells,” Evans told The Daily Telegraph while referring to regions such as the UK, Greece and Israel.
“Fluoride in the water hasn’t always been there and we’re no better off now than when it wasn’t,” he said.
West Australian president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Michael Gannon rejected Evans’ comments stating that water fluoridation has the “full backing” of the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Medical Association, adding that fluoride is proven to be a cheap and beneficial way to reduce cavities in children.
“Pete Evans is a good chef but he doesn’t have the scientific background to comment on this,” Gannon told The Daily Telegraph.
Australian Medical Association Victorian president Dr Tony Bartone backed Gannon’s comments, stating that while everyone is entitled to their own views, celebrities’ comments have a tendency to “hold extra weight in society”.
“It enrages me when celebrities like Peter Evans disregard and devalue medicine and can have potentially serious consequences for members of the public who follow these words,” said Bartone.
Evans is a passionate advocate of the Paleo diet, which omits the consumption of legumes, grains and dairy, and states that he drinks “alkalised water” in place of tap water.
Evans came under fire in 2012 over a ‘pretentious’ article published in The Sunday Life magazine where he described his daily eating habits which included the likes of blended alkalised water, organic spirulina, cultured vegetables, cacao nibs, emu meatballs and activated almonds.
Brewarrina New SouthWakes
Brewarrina Shire Council is investigating the feasibility of putting fluoride in the town’s water supply, following calls from New South Wales Health.
BILOELA and Moura ratepayers may get to decide whether fluoride continues to be added to their drinking water.
At last month’s Banana Shire Council meeting, a 500-signature petition calling for fluoridation of drinking water to cease until the council holds a referendum on fluoridation in Biloela and Moura was presented by Mayor Ron Carige.
The petition was received and, in accordance with Local Government law, it was handed to chief executive officer Ray Geraghty for consideration and to present a report back to the council.
Mr Geraghty said he would present his report to the council next week.
Fluoridation of the Biloela and Moura water supplies started about six months ago, after a dosing facility was built using funds from the State Government.
Legislation to fluoridate drinking water was introduced by the former Labor government and as a result the council proceeded with the process of calling for tenders to construct the facility.
The Newman government repealed the legislation, allowing councils to back away from fluoridation.
Since then, 23 councils across Queensland have either ceased fluoridation or voted not to proceed.
Reaction to last week’s announcement
from the Fluoride Free NZ Team, BREAKING NEWS: We hope most people are able to help with a request for an urgent legal submission before the end of the year. We’ve got a pre-written form, so it’s quick and easy, and it’s DUE ON THE 9th of JANUARY. We need everyone to say why fluoridation chemicals should NOT be granted a legal exemption under the Medicines Act.
We are against this sudden and unprecedented extreme move by the Ministry of Health, which was announced last week. Please forward this on to your networks. See below for more details and the submission form. We’re hoping everyone can get these submissions sent asap before the Christmas rush leads to the holiday snooze button! It’s been a very busy month for the FFNZ team, and after we get these submissions in, we’re looking forward to a good rest. Hope you all have a happy holiday break!
The Fluoride Action Network ( fluoridealert.com) and Dr Mercola (mecola.com) have combines to produce a number or outstyanding articles for Fluoride Awareness Week’, including those reproduced here.
1 The Hollow Men
By Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network
Only a handful of countries – largely English speaking (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, and the USA) — continue the outdated and discredited practice of water fluoridation, but in each of these citadels, more and more communities are finding out the truth.
Since 2010, over 165 communities worldwide have either ended fluoridation or rejected new proposals (e.g. Portland, Oregon). In 2012, Queensland lifted mandatory fluoridation. In August 2014, Israel banned fluoridation completely.
In Sept 2014, a major law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Peel (Ontario) citizens claiming that fluoridation is illegal under a Supreme Court ruling from the 1950s, and on Oct 7, 2014 Dublin City Council joined many other Irish councils calling on the Irish government to end mandatory fluoridation.
This has been followed by similar votes from Cork and Kerry. The response of rabid promoters to these events is highly revealing.
They continue to wheel out “prestigious authorities” to endorse the practice, even while it is becoming more and more obvious – and more and more embarrassing – that these “authorities” have no science to back their exaggerated claims of benefits or their denials of potential dangers.
Indeed, these endorsements are sounding more and more like the empty phrases of the “Hollow Men” struggling in a “dry cellar” in T.S. Elliot’s famous poem of the same name.
The American ‘Hollow Men’
So who are these hollow men and why are they wrong and horribly misleading? Here are some examples from the US, NZ, and Ireland. There are many others.
In the US, Dr. Jeffrey S. Flier, Dean of Harvard Medical School and Dr. Bruce Donoff, Dean of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine.
On March 22, 2014, these Harvard deans, wrote the following letter to avid fluoridation propagandist Dr. Myron Allukian (Massachusetts), which has since been given wide distribution by fluoridation promoters.
Allukian almost certainly sought this letter in order to quell concerns generated by two important Harvard studies: a) the osteosarcoma study by Bassin et al., 2006 and b) the meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies by Choi et al., 2012.
“Dear Dr. Allukian:
As Deans of Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, we continue to support community water fluoridation as an effective and safe public health measure for people of all ages.
Numerous reputable studies over the years have consistently demonstrated that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and practical. Fluoridation has made an enormous impact on improving the oral health of the American people.
Our country is fortunate to have over 204 million Americans living in fluoridated communities and having access to the health and economic benefits of this vital public health measure.”
Response: Like anyone else, these Deans are entitled to their opinion but neither has published any study related in any way to the work of Bassin et al. (2006) or Choi et al. (2012), nor for that matter on any health issue relating to fluoridation.
So here, we see a fairly naked attempt by Allukian to trump serious scientific studies simply using opinions and endorsements rather than valid scientific evidence.
The ‘Hollow Men’ of New Zealand
In NZ, Sir Peter Gluckman, chief scientific advisor to the Prime Minster of New Zealand and Sir David Skegg (President of the Royal Society of New Zealand).
In August 2014, in response to a number of local communities voting out water fluoridation in NZ, Gluckman and Skegg published a review titled the “Health Effects of Water Fluoridation: a Review of the Scientific Evidence.” A press report can be viewed on FluorideAlert.org’s website.1
As far as the science is concerned, this review is inaccurate, selective, and superficial. However, because of the prestige of the authors and the positions they hold, this is likely to be very influential with the NZ media, which are equally inaccurate, selective, and superficial on this issue.
Here is one section of the report, which clearly demonstrates the authors’ apparent willingness to pass on the analysis of fluoridation propagandists rather than to read the cited studies themselves. In a section titled “Effects on IQ,” Gluckman and Skegg write:
“Recently there have been a number of reports from China and other areas where fluoride levels in groundwater are naturally very high, that have claimed an association between high water fluoride levels and minimally reduced intelligence (measured as IQ) in children.
In addition to the fact that the fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities, the studies also mostly failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children.
Further, the claimed shift of less than one IQ point suggests that this is likely to be a measurement or statistical artifact of no functional significance.
A recently published study in New Zealand… revealed no evidence that exposure to water fluoridation in New Zealand affects neurological development or IQ.
We conclude that on the available evidence there is no appreciable effect on cognition arising from CWF.” (Emphasis mine)
Response: It should be incredibly embarrassing for both the NZ Prime Minister and the Royal Society of New Zealand to have their names associated with such an inaccurate and biased summary of the literature on fluoride’s impact on children’s intellectual development.
Mistaken and Misleading Claims
- Gluckman and Skegg mistakenly claim “a shift of less than one IQ point” in the 27 studies reviewed by Choi et al. (2012). What they have done here is to confuse the drop of half of one standard deviation reported by the authors with the actual drop in IQ, which was 6.9 points. Such an elementary mistake would not have been made by Gluckman and Skegg if they had actually read the report, instead of relying on what fluoridation propagandists were saying about it.
- Gluckman and Skegg’s claim that “fluoride exposures in these studies were many (up to 20) times higher than any that are experienced in New Zealand or other CWF communities” again indicates that they didn’t read the report (or read it carefully). Only two out of the 27 studies had the “high-fluoride” village concentrations going up to 11 and 11.5 ppm respectively (Yao, 1996, 2-11 ppm, and Wang, 2007, 3.6-11.5 ppm). More relevant to NZ (and other countries with water fluoridation programs in the range of 0.6 to 1.2 ppm) is the fact that 8 of the reviewed studies had concentrations in the “high-fluoride” village of less than 3 ppm.
- Moreover, when harm is found, toxicologists do not normally focus on the highest level but on the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL). In one of the studies (Xiang et al., 2003 a,b) the authors sub-divided the children in the “high-fluoride” village into 5 groups with increasing fluoride concentrations in their well water from 0.75 to 4.3 ppm. They found that as the fluoride concentration increased, the mean IQ was lowered in a linear fashion. The lowest level at which IQ lowering occurred was 1.26 ppm. This offers no adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water between 0.6 and 1.2 ppm.
- This lack of an adequate margin of safety gets worse when one notes that in two respects, NZ children are likely to get higher fluoride doses than the rural Chinese children in this study, because a) they are more likely to use fluoridated toothpaste and b) more likely to be bottle-fed, with levels of fluoride about 200 times more than breast milk (0.004 ppm).
- Gluckman and Skegg claim that of the 27 studies, most “failed to consider other factors that might influence IQ, including exposures to arsenic, iodine deficiency, socioeconomic status, or the nutritional status of the children.” However, the fact that some of the studies did not control for all of these factors does not obviate the need to examine the studies that did. For example, Xiang et al. controlled for lead, iodine, and more recently arsenic.
- Gluckman and Skegg’s use of a single recent IQ study from NZ to rebut these 27 IQ studies (Broadbent et al., 2014) further reveals their bias. The Broadbent study is incredibly weak because the authors were unable to identify any children who had neither been exposed to fluoridated water nor fluoridated supplements. In other words, they had no control group
- It is the weight of evidence on fluoride’s neurotoxicity that should make responsible scientists and health officials more cautious than Gluckman and Skegg. While none of these individual IQ studies is absolutely conclusive (although Xiang’s study comes very close), the overall consistency of the 27 IQ studies is remarkable, considering they were done by different research teams in different countries (China and Iran), and over a very wide geographical area in China.
The results are also consistent with many other animal and human studies indicating the fluoride is neurotoxic. For example, out of 32 studies, 30 have shown that animals perform less well in learning and memory experiments when exposed to fluoride.2 A more comprehensive critique of the NZ “whitewash review” has been written by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, one of the panelists for the NRC (2006) landmark review of fluoride’s toxicity.
The ‘Hollow Men’ of Ireland
In Ireland, Prof June Nunn, Dean, School of Dental Science, Trinity College Dublin; Prof Martin Kinirons, Dean, School of Dental Science, Cork University Dental School and Hospital; Dr. John Walsh, Dean, Faculty of Dentistry, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland; and Dr. Peter Gannon, President, Irish Dental Association. In a letter to the Irish Times (Oct 6, 2014), probably anticipating the vote by Dublin City Council calling on the Irish government to end fluoridation (Oct 7, 2014), these dentists wrote:
“Sir, – Ireland has a considerable history of water fluoridation. It is 50 years since fluoridation of the water supplies began in this country. Time for the considerable advantages in terms of improvements in oral health to be demonstrated and, in parallel, time during which there has been no documented medical side-effects of water fluoridation.
In the time since water fluoridation was introduced here in Ireland, the population has benefited from improved oral health services, greater access to fluoridated toothpastes and better nutrition. As a consequence, a decision was made, after scientific review, to reduce the level of fluorides in the water supply as in other countries. This is in recognition of these other sources of fluoride and to minimise the side-effect (flecking of teeth) seen when small children eat fluoridated toothpaste while living in fluoride areas.
The benefits of fluoridation are not inconsiderable in terms of all costs. While the population, both adults and children, have benefited from the consequent improvements in oral health that fluoride confers, the benefit to the health service in terms of a reduction in costs of the burden of dental disease and its management, not to say the considerable benefits to families in quality of life as a result of days free of dental pain and no loss of days at work or school in dealing with dental abscesses, are considerable.
Dental disease is one of the commonest, preventable diseases yet the country invests significant amounts of money in dealing with the consequences of that disease. Fluoridation has been proven to have significantly benefited the population thus allowing scarce health service resources to be directed towards acute life-threatening conditions.
No other health-promoting measure has been exposed to such scrutiny and been given an ongoing, clean bill of health. As a measure, water fluoridation has been recognised by the US Cancer Society, as well as the Royal College of Physicians, both here in Ireland and the UK, as being both safe and effective as well as without side effects over decades of vigilance.
We note that the most recently published expert peer-reviewed analysis by the Royal Society of New Zealand finds ‘there are no adverse effects of any significance arising from fluoridation at the levels used in New Zealand’ (ie levels higher than in Ireland). ‘In particular, no effects on brain development, cancer risk or metabolic risk have been substantiated.’ The American Dental Association ‘unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay.’
As parents as well as oral healthcare professionals, we acknowledge these endorsements and continue to advocate one of the few truly cost-effective public health measures this country has known, for the good of all, children and adults.”
- These authors very deceptively claim that in 50 years since fluoridation began in Ireland, “there has been no documented medical side-effects of water fluoridation,” without pointing out that in these 50 years there have been no health studies conducted in Ireland! The absence of study is not the same as the absence of harm.
- They compound this false impression when they say that “No other health-promoting measure has been exposed to such scrutiny” and again when they claim that the measure is without side effects “over decades of vigilance.”
- Their claims about Gluckman and Skegg’s NZ review (discussed above) and the ADA endorsement in the following excerpt is both self-serving and somewhat incestuous since it is one group of fluoridation promoters citing the “opinion” of other fluoridation promoters:
“We note that the most recently published expert peer-reviewed analysis by the Royal Society of New Zealand finds ‘there are no adverse effects of any significance arising from fluoridation at the levels used in New Zealand’ (ie levels higher than in Ireland). ‘In particular, no effects on brain development, cancer risk or metabolic risk have been substantiated.’ The American Dental Association ‘unreservedly endorses the fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective and necessary in preventing tooth decay.’”
Many members of the public and the media will probably have to wait until a lawsuit before these “Hollow Men” are exposed. When they have to testify on what they actually know – based on the primary scientific literature –rather on what they believe, it should become clear to all and sundry that their authority on this matter is very hollow indeed
Also from FAN
Opposing fluoridation in Canada in 2014
By James Beck, MD, PhD Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
2014 has been an active year in Canada in the effort to end fluoridation of public water supplies. In the provinces of Canada the decision to start or stop fluoridation is a decision of the local government, generally a town or city council. Plebiscites are not binding on councils. As yet there is no legal mandate at the provincial or federal level. This year we have seen several council decisions and plebiscite votes against fluoridation and one plebiscite vote for it by a very narrow margin.
In addition there are promising efforts and public stirrings in opposition to fluoridation in several of our ten provinces. In the province of Ontario (our most populous) a legal action has been launched to force the Regional Council of Peel to stop fluoridation. It is a particularly interesting and pertinent challenge because it is based on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The argument is in the legal context of our ethical argument against fluoridation. The result will affect all jurisdictions in Canada.
With respect to what we face in opposing fluoridation, I can add a recent event preceding a plebiscite in a small city in the Province of British Columbia. I faced the president-elect of the Canadian Dental Association in a public meeting. This practicing dentist argued with the usual safe-and-effective mantra. But the depth of ignorance—unless he was lying—was appalling. He even offered a fairy tale about the level of fluoridation in Europe and insisted that fluoride is a nutrient. This is not new, of course, but it is worthwhile to remind ourselves of what we face, as difficult as it is to believe.
Our task is to be calm and responsible and civil in our arguments and communications. And here is where FAN helps us. Our ammunition is truth, credible research, and reason. FAN is an extremely valuable and rich source of information and useful news and more personal support. From here in Canada I can tell you that FAN is global in its relevance and in its actions.
Note from FAN: Canadian Communities rejecting fluoridation in 2014:
Huntsville, Ontario, January (population 19,100)
Lake of Bays, Ontario, January (population 3,500)
St John, New Brunswick, March 10 (population 76,550
Richmond, Québec, October 19 (population 3,300)
Prince George, British Columbia, November 15 (population 71,970)
Sparwood, British Columbia, November 15 (population 3,500)
La Prairie, Québec, December 2 (population 20,000)
For more information go to Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation
Fluoride-pushing doctors and dentists who try to contaminate your water supply with fluoride are promoting their deadly agenda with a clever lie… a lie you will see obediently repeated in every fluoride push. Here’s how it sounds:
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral in the water. Our city’s water is unfortunate enough to have a low level, so we are simply adjusting the fluoride in the water to its optimum levels to improve public health.
This lie is repeated almost verbatim, across every city that seeks to poison its citizens with fluoride. Why is it a lie? Here are the five false deceptions found embedded in the statement:
Deception #1) The fluoride ADDED to the water is not “naturally occurring fluoride.” It’s a chemical byproduct often purchased from chemical plants in China (see below).
Deception #2) The false idea that ingesting fluoride is somehow good for your teeth. At best, fluoride is a topical treatment which should be swished around your mouth and then spat out. And that’s only if it’s truly natural (mineral) fluoride, not the fluosilicic acid toxins being pushed as fluoride.
Deception #3) What cities call “fluoride” is actually a toxic cocktail of over 100 deadly industrial chemicals and heavy metals, many of which are purchased in bulk from China, where industrial processing plants are trying to get rid of their excess toxic waste by labeling it “sodium fluoride.”
Deception #4) There is no such thing as a “low” level of fluoride or an “optimum” level of fluoride in drinking water. Pure drinking water should contain NO fluoride whatsoever.
Deception #5) Fluoride is “safe” for human consumption. Oh really? Then why is sodium fluoride labeled by its industrial manufacturers with stern safety warnings about causing severe harm to humans?
In full from Water Liberty News:
A review of how fluoridation chemicals are marketed by some of their Chinese suppliers. See picture of one example at head of this week’s news.
Chinese fluoride manufacturers openly admit to the toxicity of the chemical
Much of the so-called “fluoride” dumped into the public water supply in the USA, Canada, Australia and other nations actually comes from companies like this one in China: Fluoride Chemicals (Yunnan) Co., Ltd. As you can clearly see on this industrial chemicals listing page of Alibaba.com, the Fluoride Chemicals Yunnan Co. offers a 98% water treatment Sodium Fluoride product with the following description for its uses: It is used in the manufacture of effervescing steel, and the smelting and refining of light metals. It is also used in fluorination of drinking water, as a wood preservative, an adhesive preservative. An insecticide, a protective coating for metals, a pickle for steels and other metals, a flux for soldering and welding, as well as a flux and pacifier for ceramic, glass and porcelain enamel. (http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/540825136/…) This company also manufacturers synthetic cryolite, the fluoride-pesticide that’s being secretly sprayed on grapes and other crops, adding huge quantities of fluoride to your food (http://www.naturalnews.com/036753_fluoride_p…). Here’s the description of synthetic cryolite, right from the industrial chemical supplier that sells it by the ton to U.S. food producers: Uses: It’s mainly used as a flux in the aluminum smelting by fused-salt electrolysis; also an opalizer in the manufacture of enamel; an opacifier and auxiliary solvent of glass and enamel; an insecticide of crops; a flux in aluminum alloy casting; and in the production of ferrous alloy and effervescing steel; as well as a wear-resistant filler for resin and rubber-boned abrasive wheels. (http://ynfhx.en.alibaba.com/product/54002248…) “Highly corrosive to human skin”
Another supplier of sodium fluoride to municipal water facilities, the Shanghai Polymet Commodities Ltd. company in China, offers the following description of its bulk fluoride chemical: Fluosilicic Acid / hydrofluosilicic acid: Property: Colorless, transparent and smoky liquid with penetrating odor; highly acidic; soluble in water and volatile; with disinfecting action; corrosive to glass, ceramics, lead and other metals; highly corrosive to human skin and harmful to people’s respiratory organs; keep it in a container made of plastics. (http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/523747967/…) Yet another industrial fluoride supplier from China describes its sodium fluoride as: used as pesticides and bactericides in agriculture. Used as UF2 adsorbent in nuclear industry. (http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/421835290/…) Another sodium fluoride supplier describes their fluoride chemicals as “A colorless crystalline or white powder, …dissolved in water, with toxic.” (http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/264259230/…) This company goes on to describe the uses of its sodium fluoride chemicals as: Be used as anti-corrosion agent in wood, medical corrosion, fusing in welding… manufacture of rimmed steel, treatment of hides and skins for leather industry, adhesive preservative, purification and coloring flux in the melting of light metals. Here are two photos, taken right off the Alibaba website, showing how fluoride is promoted as an insecticide, a chemical for the nuclear industry, and a water treatment chemical all in one! Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037024_sodium_fluoride_insecticide_proof.html#ixzz3LzRqXFup
From FAN News you may have missed:
Loveland Will Increase Fluoride in Water (Colorado)
–Banana Shire Considers Petition to Stop Fluoridation (Australia)
Celebrity Chef Pete Evans Opposes Fluoridation (Australia)
All the following have been featured in earlier articlesim SWIS News . see indexes on the drop down menu the earleir ,omths of 2014 The final quarter index will be upoated shortly.
–Santa Rosa NAACP Opposes Water Fluoridation (California)
Visit the FAN News Archive for more fluoride news from around the world.
This is essential reading. It demolishes the econimic case for fluoridation systematically and completely. If possible, it will be included in full in the next edition. Meanwhile, do download it from the link beklow.
Kathleen Thiessen: A very detailed critque of the claimed economic benefits of fluorifdatyion dissects the well rpeated claim that $1 spent on fluoridation is is $38 saved.
‘Follow the money’
Essential reading to answer the question ‘Why dowees the ADA support fluoride?’ and to understand just how much money is involved in its promoition in the US.
Dental Lobby Pour Half-million Dollars into Fluoridation PR Campaign
By Carol Kopf, Media Director for Fluoride Action Network
The American Dental Association (ADA) announced on December 8, 2014, that they will pour $500,000 into a PR campaign to fool the American public into believing that fluoridation is good for them when science and government statistics prove otherwise. However, we have something they can never buy – the truth – which is why we are winning the fluoridation wars.
In a left-handed compliment to all of us, the ADA says “anti-fluoridation groups are very media savvy.”
Like corporations that market health-robbing sugary drinks and cereal to children, the ADA plans to sell fluoridation to the American public with “marketing and advertising via Facebook, YouTube and other social media platforms and optimizing search engines to help ensure that ADA information is prominent in Internet searches.”
This tactic isn’t new. In a 1951 State Dental Directors’ meeting, sound-bites, excuses and whitewashes were suggested to initiate fluoridation. “Voices of opposition have been suppressed since early days of fluoridation,” according to Chemical & Engineering News, 1988).
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the ADA’s monetary involvement with the U.S. Congress in 2014 included:
- Contributions to candidates: $1,187,100
- Contributions to Leadership PACs: $363,500
- Contributions to parties: $120,250
- Contributions to 527 committees: $505,418
- Contributions to outside spending groups: $317,000
Fluoridation continues to be sold to the American public with slick PR, appeal to authority, spokesperson training, strategy-meetings, expensive lobbyists but little, if any, valid science. Even the Oral Health Division of the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) employs a PR Agency to sell you fluoridation. And the Pew Charitable Trusts is funding the Children’s Dental Health Project that has created coalitions of local health groups throughout the country to mobilize for fluoridation.
On the other hand, for example, Portland, Oregon, used science and integrity to defeat fluoridation, 61% to 39% even after being outspent 3-to-1 and despite Portland fluoridationists seemingly attempting to buy votes.
The truth is that, after 7 decades of fluoridation, 6 decades of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products (and in higher concentrations), a fluoride-saturated food supply, tooth decay is a growing epidemic in the US – untreated tooth decay is even worse.
The culprit is poverty and poor diets. And those with the greatest dental needs can’t get their cavities filled. Eighty percent of dentists refuse Medicaid patients. 130 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. Many with insurance can’t afford dentistry’s high out-of-pocket costs. Hospital emergency rooms are their only option. The Journal of American Dental Association reported that 101 people died in hospitals from the consequences of untreated tooth decay. Many, who can afford to, travel to other countries to get affordable quality dentistry.
One solution is to legalize Dental Therapists in the US to work in areas where dentists refuse to go. But organized dentistry lobbies against any group infringing upon dentists’ lucrative monopoly. In fact, the ADA joined the rich and politically influential American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) which bloomberg.com reports may be to get help in thwarting Dental Therapists because “The dentists, no surprise, are decidedly against outsourcing their work to non-dentists.”
Some evidence that fluoridation has failed:
Florida is 78% fluoridated. In 2012, more than 139,000 (6.4% increase from 2011) were treated in hospital emergency departments (ER) for preventable dental conditions. Spending averaged $141 million (22% increase from 2011). Only 8% of Medicaid Children got dental treatment. Only 10% of Florida dentists participate in Medicaid. See: http://www.nnoha.org/nnoha-content/uploads/2014/08/Jaana-Gold-presentation.pdf
Collier County, Florida, is 80% fluoridated but cavity rates among third-graders “were among the highest levels documented in the United States,” according to University of Florida researchers’ presentation at the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry’s May 2014 annual meeting. See: http://www.eventscribe.com/2014/posters/aapd/SplitViewer.asp?PID=NTc0NTEyOTYx;#
Nationally, 830,590 Americans were treated in ERs for preventable dental problems in 2009. Fifty-two percent of US children enrolled in Medicaid did not receive dental care in 2011. Over 45 million Americans live in areas with a dentist shortage. Fifty-two countries use Dental Therapists and other midlevel professionals to expand care to more people. The first US Dental Therapists are working in rural Alaska where residents used to pull their own teeth. The ADA spent a million dollars on an unsuccessful lawsuit trying to stop them.
More evidence that fluoridation is failing: http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com
Fluoridation: Follow the Money, by Carol S. Kopf, BS, MA http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/fluoridation-follow-money-by-carol-s.html
Dec 12 From FAN:
In their own words: Why Public Officials Oppose Fluoridation
Here is a small sample of quotes from public officials explaining why they oppose fluoridation. We plan to put up a webpage with a more extensive list of statements in the near future:
“My job as a senator is to protect the people, not to protect a failed government policy. It is inarguably a breach of human rights to drug a population against their will, via the water system…My motion in the Senate is to give back the human right to choose what drug each Irish citizen does or does not take into their body. I urge everyone to put pressure on their TDs, councilors and anyone else in a position of power to join the fight for Ireland’s health freedom.” – (Read Entire Letter)
“The federal government should have zero…nothing to do with the promotion of fluoridation unless it’s on a military base…and hopefully there they would do the right thing. So no, federal fluoride promotion shouldn’t exist, they shouldn’t be telling you or anyone else what should happen because even though it was well intended at the time–I remember that I thought it was a bad principle because in a way it was massive treatment–and at the time everybody accepted the idea that fluoride was great and that you would never get a cavity and there was no downside, now there is a big question, that’s why you don’t want government doing these kinds of things. You or I should decide, someone should give us bottled water with fluoride, or we should have the ability to buy water with fluoride, but we should not have the federal government promoting fluoridation…sometimes their right, most of the time their wrong. They shouldn’t have the authority to do this. Especially with the information out there now about fluoride, I would do my best to stop federal involvement with state and local fluoride decisions.”
“There should be no mandatory fluoridation without the approval of people in a public referendum preceded by full and open public debate with disclosures. There is an old Roman law adage that says, ‘What touches all should be decided by all.'” – (also see our video interview)
“I remember as a kid, one of the big battles going on was about fluoridation of the water. Well, I don’t know whether or not fluoridating the water helps people’s teeth become better or not. I don’t know that. But, I do know that in this country, we should be the ones who should be deciding what we put into our bodies one way or the other. Not the federal government or the local government putting fluoride into our water. A lot of these things come down to freedom issues. They come down to whether or not we will control our own destiny. The fact that we will be consistent with what our founding fathers had in mind for us in controlling our own lives.”
“As a legislator and practicing physician serving in the Tennessee Legislature, I am writing this letter to advise you of my recommendation that water districts in Tennessee no longer add fluoride to drinking water supplies…There is no requirement to add fluoride and with the new evidence of possible risks to various organs in the body and the very limited benefit of continued fluoridation, it would be prudent for each water system to weigh all the evidence concerning risks to the water customers they serve. 1would urge you to end the practice of adding fluoride for the welfare of your friends and neighbors.” – (Read Entire Letter and see video interview)
“This legislation will have an immediate and critical impact – the city will save between seven and 10 million dollars per year, and New Yorkers will no longer ingest a toxic chemical every time they take a sip of water, take a shower or wash a piece of fruit. While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public. I hope to prevent little babies from being poisoned. No one should be forced to ingest this toxic poison every day of their life.”
“My motion seeking to end water fluoridation in Ireland was approved at Dublin City Council last night. 98% of Europe has rejected the practice of water fluoridation and it was banned in Holland in 1976. Numerous studies worldwide have indicated potential harm to human health from adding fluoride to our drinking water. Why are we taking this risk when dental health can be dealt with by conventional methods? There’s a lot of questions to be answered. My argument is it’s universal medication, it’s one size fits all, but even the World Health Organization, which recommends fluoride, recommends it – but only where intake of fluoride is known. Even our own government should be looking into it more…[removing fluoride] is in the interest of safety and erring on the side of safety”
“New research shows that ingesting fluoride delivers health risks without benefit of less tooth decay which makes water fluoridation obsolete, unhealthy and a waste of money, and that is why I introduced legislation calling for the end of Milwaukee’s water fluoridation program…We have served as guinea pigs in this ongoing and failed experiment for far too long. In my position as Alderman, it is my duty to promote the health, safety and welfare of all our residents. Adding fluoride chemicals into our public water supply runs counter to this and therefore needs to end.” – (Read his entire statement)
“It was evident to me during my election campaign that a lot of people were very vocal on their concerns about their water supply being medicated by fluoride against their will and they were asking for this to be addressed. I carried out a small degree of research and found that in other countries across Europe and in N Ireland that fluoridation of water does not exist, for me this was alarming. I am elected to voice the concerns of the public and I will continue to do this. This was passed unanimously in KCC, no other Councillor from any party disagreed with my motion in calling on the removal of Fluoride from our water supply here in Co Kerry. I hope that other councils around the country will follow suit. Irish water expect us now on top of this to add insult to injury to pay for the water that they medicate against our wishes, they must be joking, I personally will not be paying one red cent as I do not or my family do not want fluoride in our water supply. I will continue to support the campaigns for the removal of fluoride from our water supply going forward.”
“Firstly [rejecting a plan to fluoridate] is good for the people of Southampton and the surrounding area that would have received this medication via their tap water. But it’s also good news because I think it sends out a message nationally that public health bodies cannot impose their wishes upon people without their consent.”
“I understand the arguments about children’s teeth, but each individual should decide what they take in their water. It’s fundamental. If you agree to the principle that the government can add to water, they might put all sorts of things in the water. Our water should be pure and to put fluoride in water is mass medication, which is illegal.”
‘I wrote this important article on the dangers of Fluoride and got it published in 2 Donegal Newspapers, “The Inish Times” yesterday and “Donegal News” on Monday, and I also got it into “The Killkenny Post”. Please share this far and wide on all your friends pages. During water protests please also try and make this undrinkable poison, disguised as water an issue……look out for part 2 next week’
Floyd Maxwell Published June 2013 but you may not have seen it. Includes a fairly advanxced chemistry lesson. .
The issue of fluoridation from a Chemical Engineer’s perspective
7 min. video , part of a series of ‘. News You Can Use – from Dr. David Beaulieu who holds a DC (Doctor of Chiropractic), MS in Nutrition/Biology, BS in Preventative and Applied Therapeutic Clinical Nutrition, BA in Biology, as well as Certificates in Clinical Nutrition, Bio-Nutrition, and Acupuncture. Dr. David is licensed to practice in the states of Missouri and Kansas This week, Dr. David discusses fluoride.
More video 5 minutes from ‘Friends of Water.com’ that sells filters but it still makes a concise factual cse.